1. Following an LII audit of an Immediate Response Action (IRA) and Remedy Operation Status (ROS), which consists of Air-Sparging/Soil Vapor Extraction, DEP issued a NOAF/NON for failure to comply with the MCP. DEP required sampling of private drinking water wells in the vicinity of the site as a condition of approving the Phase IV and ROS in 2000. Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), which DEP attributed to the site, was identified in a nearby private well. Subsequent sampling of the nearby wells had not been conducted. The 2004 ROS Status Report states "groundwater contaminants have reached asymptotic concentrations based upon a recent review of groundwater data". DEP noted that the limited effectiveness of the selected remedial alternative to reduce groundwater contaminant levels below applicable Method 1 GW-1 Standards, without significant system modification, indicates that the remedial system is not operating to meet its design specification of achieving a Permanent Solution. In addition, periodic sampling and analysis of other private wells, including residential wells, within a minimum of 500 feet of the site, has not been performed since August 2000 to continually assess and evaluate for conditions requiring an IRA, or demonstrate that the source of dissolved-phase petroleum contamination has been controlled and that a condition of No Substantial Hazard as a condition of ROS has been achieved. Failure to submit an initial IRA status report and subsequent status reports every six months thereafter was also identified. DEP required a revised ROS, including the results of private well sampling within 500 feet of the site or notice of need to substantially modify or terminate the ROS for failure to meet its performance standards of eliminating substantial hazards and achieving a permanent solution. (Oxford, RTN 2-0001075 & 2-0013426, NON-CE-04-3A154, March 11, 2005)
   
   
2. Following an LII audit of a Tier Classification Submittal, DEP issued a NOAF/NON for failure to comply with the MCP. The site is a residential property that has been subject to a release of heating oil from a former aboveground storage tank, resulting in the contamination of soil, groundwater, and the on-site private drinking water well. In the Tier Classification Submittal for this release, DEP noted that Section II B (scores potential Exposure Pathways for four media: soil, groundwater, surface water and air) of the NRS Scoresheet was given only 100 points for groundwater, indicative of only a potential exposure pathway. According to the Phase I Report, five rounds of sampling of the on-site private drinking water well, conducted as part of an Immediate Response Action (IRA), have indicated the presence of methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) at concentrations below the GW-1 Method 1 Risk Characterization Standard for drinking water. Concentrations of MTBE were detected in groundwater at the source area as a result of the release of heating oil at this site. Therefore, the MTBE in the drinking water well is possibly attributed to the release and Section II B should have been scored 150 points for a Likely or Confirmed Exposure Pathway. DEP required preparation and submittal of a revised NRS Scoresheet and, if applicable, a Major Modification Application. (Lunenburg, RTN 2-0015127, NON-CE-05-3A022, March 21, 2005)

Level III Audits for March 2005:
DEP completed Level III audits and issued NOAFs at eleven sites in March 2005. Six NONs were issued with DEP's findings. Level III audits of interest in March 2005 include:

1. The site is located at a combination commercial and residential property in a relatively small but densely settled village. The site has been used as a general store since 1908, and retail gasoline sales have been on-going since approximately 1931. A river is located over 1,000 feet downgradient to the west, and an unnamed stream tributary to the river is located between approximately 170 and 260 feet upgradient to the east. The immediate area is served by a public water supply distribution system and reportedly no private wells are located within 500 feet of the disposal site. Although the well-head of the PWS is located approximately 800 feet southeast of the disposal site, the site lies outside of the Interim Wellhead Protection Area boundary. A release of gasoline was discovered in 1988 during the replacement of two underground storage tanks (USTs). In 1996, DEP received a Tier II Classification. A NOAF indicating the need for additional groundwater assessment was issued in 1997. An NON was issued in 2000 for failure to complete Phase II to IV response actions in accordance with MCP timelines. A Release Abatement Measure (RAM) Status Report was received in 2000, which reported that approximately 51 tons of gasoline-contaminated soil had been excavated and transported off site in December 1998 when the single-walled UST installed in 1988 was replaced with a double-walled UST. In August 2001 DEP received a combined Phase II Report, Phase III evaluation, and Class C Response Action Outcome Statement (RAO). DEP issued a NOAF/NON, which determined that response actions were not performed in compliance with the requirements of the MCP. DEP noted several areas of noncompliance. They include: (a) conducting a RAM before a RAM plan is submitted; (b) providing an initial screening of remedial action alternatives in the Phase III that identified the selected alternative as "groundwater monitoring"; (c) not providing a detailed evaluation of the selected remedial action alternative which demonstrates: that the selected alternative is proven to be effective; results in the reuse, recycling, destruction, detoxification, treatment, or any combination thereof of the contamination present at the disposal site; that can be implemented in a manner that will not pose a significant risk of harm; and that is likely to result in the reduction and/or control of contamination (the selected remedial method, groundwater monitoring, does not meet any of the criteria); and (d) not providing an evaluation of the feasibility of implementing a Permanent Solution. Several additional items of noncompliance were identified such as, failure to provide: a plan that presents definitive and enterprising steps toward achieving a Permanent Solution, not reporting soil data on a dry weight basis, not submitting a RAM Completion Report, and late submittal of Bill of Lading documents. DEP required submittal of: a RAM Completion Statement, a revised risk characterization and Phase III evaluation, and either a Phase IV Remedy Implementation Plan with a statement retracting the existing Class C RAO, or a revised Class C RAO Statement; or, alternatively, a Class A RAO Statement. (New Marlborough, RTN 1-0000777, NON-WE-05-3A017, March 08, 2005).
   
   
2. The site is a 2.65-acre property that operated as a pesticide formulation and storage facility from 1949 to 1974. The property was subdivided in the 1980's and has been used by several light industrial and commercial businesses. There are currently two buildings on the site. The site is nearly level, sloping gently to the northeast and merging into a wetland environmental. The wetland is approximately 3 feet lower than the site. An unnamed stream bisects the wetland and discharges to a brook. The pesticide operation mixed technical grade pesticides (manufactured by others) with diluents to obtain products of various concentrations. For solid formulations, the primary diluent was inert clay. For liquid formulations, solvent-based petroleum distillates were used. A notification of a hazardous waste site was submitted to EPA by the pesticide facility in June 1981, in compliance with CERCLA. EPA classified the site as an unsecured hazardous waste landfill, and EPA and DEP initiated environmental investigations. Limited assessment was conducted in 1983 and 1984. DEP issued a Notice of Responsibility in August 1984. Several additional environmental studies were conducted between 1984 and 1991. The site was classified as Tier 1B in 1994. Three release areas were identified at the site: 1) The former liquid pesticide formulation building and associated drum wash area, 2) A concrete evaporation pit, and 3) The ash burial area. Multiple response actions were conducted at the site including: soil excavation; a soil stabilization/solidification pilot study; boring/monitoring well installation; and groundwater, soil, sediment, and surface water sampling. DEP received a Phase II Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA) and Method 3 Risk Characterization in 1997. DEP received a partial Class A-2 and Partial Class A-3 RAO and associated Activity & Use Limitation (AUL) in 2003. DEP noted that the Method 3 Human Health Risk Characterization indicated that exposure by facility workers to contaminants in surficial soils (including a Hot Spot Area) resulted in an Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk (ELCR) of four-in-one hundred thousand (4x10 -5). This cancer risk value exceeds the regulatory cancer risk limit of 1x10 -5. Therefore, an Imminent Hazard evaluation should have been prepared to determine risk to the on-site facility workers. Subsequent response actions were conducted to excavate contaminated soils and eliminate Imminent Hazard conditions at the site. The Stage II Ecological Risk Characterization used the American Robin, Short-tailed shrew, and earthworms as representative population species for the site. Exposure scenarios for wildlife focused on ingestion of contaminated sediment, ingestion of surface water, and ingestion of earthworms containing bioaccumulated pesticides. The risk characterization did not evaluate risk directly for aquatic invertebrates, amphibians, waterfowl, or wading birds as likely populations that may be highly susceptible to the effects of pesticides in an aquatic food chain as required. A Zone II for a public water supply and Potentially Productive Aquifer (PPA) is located approximately 1,500 feet hydrogeologically downgradient of the site. Concentrations of Dieldrin have been detected above drinking water standards in the most downgradient monitoring well. Therefore, the Phase II CSA failed to fully evaluate the extent of contamination and the environmental fate and transport of groundwater contaminants as required. DEP noted a failure of all property owners to sign and notarize the AUL. DEP required either termination of the AUL, and submittal of a revised AUL that addresses the violation identified and complies with the requirements of the MCP, or retraction of the existing partial A-3 RAO Opinion. In addition, a revised risk characterization must be submitted with the final Response Action Outcome (RAO) Statement, meeting the requirements of the MCP for the entire site. (Ayer, RTN 2-0000020 & 2-0014518, NON-CE-05-3A023, March 22, 2005).